An Organ of a Liberal Labour Policy

Published:Zvezda, No. 11 (47), February 19, 1912.

      Signed:F. L-ko.

      Published according to theZvezdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 17,

      pages487-490.Translated:Dora CoxTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Beforeme lie three issues of the St. Petersburg weekly
newspaperZhivoye

Dyelo[1]which began publication in January last.

Iinvite readers to look closely at the sermons which it preaches.

Themain political question of the day is the elections to the Fourth
Duma. Martov’s article in No. 2 is devoted to this subject. The slogan he
puts forward reads: “We must endeavour to dislodge reaction from its
positions in the Duma.” And in No. 3 Dan repeats this idea—“The best
way to weaken its pernicious influence [that of the Council of State] is to
wrest the Duma from the hands of the reactionaries.”

Theslogan is clear, and every class-conscious worker will have no
difficulty, of course, in seeing that it is not a Marxist, not a
proletarian, not even a democratic, but aliberalslogan. It is
the slogan of a liberal labour policy.

Hereis Martov’s defence of this slogan: “Is this taskfeasibleunder the existing electoral law? Unquestionably, it
is. True, this electoral law guarantees beforehand a majority of electors
from the landowners and the first urban [capitalist] curia in a
considerable [?] number of gubernia assemblies.

Inhis attempt to defend a bad cause Martov was at once forced to make
a flagrantly wrong assertion. The electors from the landowners plus the
first urban curia comprise an absolute majority, not “in a considerable
number” of gubernia assemblies, butpositively in all of them(in
European Russia). And this is not all. In 28 out of 53 gubernias, the
electors sent by the landownersalonecomprise anabsolute
majorityin the gubernia assemblies. And these 28 guberniassend 255 deputies to the Duma—out of a total of 442, i.e., again an
absolute majority.

Inorder to defend the liberal slogan about “dislodging reaction from
its positions in the Duma” Martov had to begin by whitewashing the Russian
landowners so as to make them look like liberals. Not a bad beginning!

“However,”Martov continues, “the last elections showed that among
the landowners and the big urban bourgeoisie too, there are elements
hostile to the Black-Hundred, nationalist and Octobrist reactionaries.”

True.Even some of the electors delegated by the landowners are members
of the opposition, Cadets. What conclusion is to be drawn from this? Only
that the Duma majority elected on the basis of the law of June 3, 1907,
cannot be shiftedfarther than a landowners’ “liberal”
opposition. The landowner has the last say. This fact remains true, and
Martov tries to evade it. Consequently, only if the landowner joins the
opposition can the “opposition” (of the landowners) gain the
upper hand. But that is precisely the crux of the whole question; can one
say, without turning into a liberal, that the (landowners’)
“liberal opposition will be capable of dislodging reaction from its
positions in the Duma”?

Inthe first place, we must not gloss over the fact that our electoral
law favours the landowners. Secondly, we must not forget that the
landowners’ “opposition” has all the distinguishing features of so-called
“Left Octobrism” (with which the Cadets are permitted by their
last conference to form blocs!—something that it is no use Martov keeping
quiet about). Only comical liberal politicians can talk about a possible
victory of “Left Octobrists”, and of “wresting the Duma from the hands
of the reactionaries” or of “dislodging reaction from its positions in
the Duma”.

Thetask of worker democrats is totake advantageof the
conflicts between the liberals and the present majority in the Dumafor
the purposeof strengthening the democratic forces in the Duma, and by
no means to support liberal illusions about the possibility of “wresting
the Duma from the hands of the reactionaries”.

Ourauthor lands into an even worse mess when he turns to a question ofprinciple, to the question as to whatsignificanceshould
be attached to the eventuality of “theentireopposition breaking down the Black-Hundred Octobrist majority in the
Duma”.

“Itis to the interest of the workers,” argues Martov, “that power
in a class state should be transferred from the hands of the savage
landowner into the hands of the more civilised bourgeoisie.”

Awonderful argument. Only a minor detail has been for gotten—a mere
trifle—that “it is to the interest” of the Russian “more
civilised bourgeoisie”, the liberals, the Cadets,not to
underminethe power of the savage landowner. “It is to the interest”
of the liberals to share power with him, taking care not to undermine this
power and not to place a single weapon in the hands of democracy.

Thatis the crux of the matter! And it is to no purpose that you try to
evade a serious question and, with an air of importance, chew the cud of
trivial commonplaces.

“Bystrengthening their representation in the Duma,” says Martov,
“the Cadets and the Progressists will still not be able to assume power,
but it will facilitate their advance towards power.” Well, well. If that
is the case, why is it that, since 1848, the German Cadets and Progressists
have “strengthened their representation” in Parliament time and again,
but, for all that, they have so far “not come to power”? Why is it that
during sixty-four years,and to this very day, they haveleftpower in the hands of the Junkers? Why is it that the Russian
Cadets, although they “increased their representation” in the First and
Second Dumas, did not “facilitate their advance towards power”?

Martovaccepts Marxism only insofar as it isacceptabletoanyeducated liberal. It is to the interest of the workers that
power should be transferred from the hands of the landowner into the hands
of the more civilised bourgeois—every liberal in the world will subscribe
to this “conception” of the “interest of the workers”. But
that is still not Marxism. Marxism goes further and says:

(1) it is to the interest of the liberals not to undermine the power of the
landowner, but to take a place next to him;

(2) it is to the interest of the liberals to share power with the
landowners in such a way as to leave absolutely nothing to the worker or to
democracy;

(3) poweractuallydoes “fall out” of thehands of the landowners and “passes into the hands” of the liberalsonly whendemocracy triumphsin spiteof the
liberals. You want Proof? Take the entire history of France and the latest
events in China. In the latter country the liberal Yuan Shih-kai would
never have come to power even provisionally, even conditionally, if Chinese
democracy had not scored a victoryin spiteof Yuan Shih-kai.

Ifthe commonplace maxim that a liberal is better than a member of the
Black Hundreds isallthat Struve, Izgoyev and Co. accept in the
way of Marxism, the dialectics of the class struggle is a sealed book both
to the liberal as well as to Martov.

Tosum up: precisely in order that power in Russia may actually
“pass” from the hands of the landownersintothe hands of the
bourgeoisie, democracy in general, and the workers in particular, must not
be deceived and enfeebled by thefalseslogan of “wresting the
Duma from the hands of the reactionaries”. The practical task that faces
us at the elections is by no means to “dislodge reaction from its
positions in the Duma”, but to strengthen the forces of democracy in
general and of working-class democracy in particular. This task may
sometimes clash with the “task” of increasing the number of liberals, but
five additional democrats are more important to us, and more useful to the
proletariat, than fifty additional liberals.

Hencethe following conclusion which Martov refuses to draw, even
though he does pretend to agree that the Cadets arenotdemocrats,
but liberals:

(1) in the five big

cities,[2]in the event of a second ballot, agreements are permissibleonlywith the democrats against the liberals;

(2) atallthe ballots and inallthe agreements at the
second stage,precedenceshould be given to agreements with the
democrats against the liberals, and only subsequently may agreements be
concluded with the liberals against the Rights.

[1]ZhivoyeDyelo(Vital Cause)—the weekly legal
newspaper of the Menshevik-liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from
January 20 (February 2) to April 28 (May 11), 1912. Sixteen issues
appeared.

[2]Thefive big cities where, according to the electoral law, there were
direct elections with second ballots were St. Petersburg, Moscow, Riga,
Kiev and Odessa.